Background: The perception of ergonomic characteristics is a factor that influences product handling or purchase. It is vital to study it to design items that mitigating the posture and load risk factors.
Objective: Identify the ergonomic descriptors of general-purpose hoe-type hand tools related to operators’ perception of comfort.
Method: A pre-study was carried out to identify descriptors associated with the concepts of comfort and discomfort. In conjunction with a survey of 50 participants in the study, a literature review was conducted. The data that was obtained was filtered, and the degree of association that the word had with the term comfort was explored with 64 distinct users employing the semantic differential. A principal component analysis (PCA) was used to enlace these descriptors to more generic terms.
Results: The adjectives linked with comfort may be classified into seven major components, with a total variation of 63.99%. Factor 1 explains 18.95% of the results and is associated with perceptions of physical well-being; factor 2 with perceptions of structural solidity; factor 3 with tool appearance; factor 4 with professional identity; factor 5 with perceptions of quality; factor 6 with posture comfort; and factor 7 with perceptions of efficiency.
Conclusion: This study provides useful information for designers in the development of hoe-type hand tools with ergonomic properties related with comfort. Reducing discomfort in terms of comfort may help reduce the risk of developing musculoskeletal illnesses by avoiding demanding postures and muscle and joint overloads.
CastañedaADoanDNewhouseD, et al.Who Are the Poor in the Developing World? Poverty and Shared Prosperity Report 2016: Taking on Inequality Background Paper. Available at: http://econ.worldbank.org (accessed 21 July 2022).
4.
PerfettiJJBalcázarÁHernándezA,et al.Políticas para el desarrollo de la agricultura en Colombia. 2013.
5.
ConfortiP. Looking ahead in world food and agriculture: perspectives to 2050. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). 2011.
6.
ChristensenADBishuRR. Hand tools design: are biomechanical criteria the same as aesthetic criteria? A preliminary study. Proc Hum Factors Ergon Soc Annu Meet2000; 44: 574–577.
7.
Mondragón DonésS. Aportaciones de la semántica del producto al diseño de herramientas. Tesis doctoral (D. de ingeniería mecánica y construcción. C. U. J. Castelló (ed.)). 2011.
8.
PrattANYuB. An updated look at the recovery of agricultural productivity in Sub-Saharan Africa.IFPRI Discussion Paper 787. Washington, DC: Intl Food Policy Res Inst, 2008.
9.
HeadeyDAlauddinMRaoDSP. Explaining agricultural productivity growth: an international perspective. Agric Econ2010; 41: 1–14.
10.
AwekeCSHassenJYWordofaMG, et al.Impact assessment of agricultural technologies on household food consumption and dietary diversity in eastern Ethiopia. J Agric Food Res2021; 4: 100141.
11.
DjoumessiYF. What innovations impact agricultural productivity in Sub-Saharan Africa?J Agric Food Res2021; 6: 100228.
12.
MansfieldNNaddeoAFrohriepS,et al.Integrating and applying models of comfort. Appl Ergon2020; 82: 102917.
13.
SepehrPJabbariMSadeghi NaeiniH, et al.Design and psychometric analysis of the safety harness usability and comfort assessment tool (SH UCAT). 2023. doi: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e13524.
14.
NadhimEAHonCXiaB, et al.Falls from height in the construction industry: a critical review of the scientific literature. Int J Environ Res Public Health2016; 13: 38.
15.
De LoozeMPKuijt-EversLFMVan DieënJ. Sitting comfort and discomfort and the relationships with objective measures. Ergonomics2003; 46: 985–997.
16.
JohnDA. Designing for comfort. ASHRAE J2011; 53: 38–46.
17.
Kuijt-EversLFMVinkPde LoozeMP. Comfort predictors for different kinds of hand tools: differences and similarities. Int J Ind Ergon2007; 37: 73–84.
18.
VinkP. Comfort and design: principles and good practice. Boca Raton, Florida, USA: CRC Press, 2005.
19.
VinkPHallbeckS. Editorial: comfort and discomfort studies demonstrate the need for a new model. Appl Ergon2012; 43: 271–276.
20.
CappettiNNaddeoACalifanoR,et al.Using axiomatic design to identify the elements that affect the evaluation of comfort/discomfort perception. Adv Intell Syst Comput2017; 487: 235–248.
21.
Kuijt-EversLFMBoschTHuysmansMA, et al.Association between objective and subjective measurements of comfort and discomfort in hand tools. Appl Ergon2006; 38: 643–654.
MokdadMAl-AnsariM. Anthropometrics for the design of Bahraini school furniture. Int J Ind Ergon2009; 39: 728–735.
24.
SperlingLDahlmanSWikströmL, et al.A cube model for the classification of work with hand tools and the formulation of functional requirements. Appl Ergon1993; 24: 212–220.
25.
ChenHYChangYM. Extraction of product form features critical to determining consumers’ perceptions of product image using a numerical definition-based systematic approach. Int J Ind Ergon2009; 39: 133–145.
26.
SavescuACuny-GuerrierAWildP, et al.Objective assessment of knife sharpness over a working day cutting meat. Appl Ergon2018; 68: 109–116.
27.
Rok ChangSParkSFreivaldsA. Ergonomic evaluation of the effects of handle types on garden tools. Int J Ind Ergon1999; 24: 99–105.
28.
UlinSSWaysCMArmstrongTJ,et al.Perceived exertion and discomfort versus work height with a pistol-shaped screwdriver. Am Ind Hyg Assoc J1990; 51: 588–594.
29.
FreundJTakalaEPToivonenR. Effects of two ergonomic aids on the usability of an in-line screwdriver. Appl Ergon2000; 31: 371–376.
30.
ChaoAKumarAJNagarajaraoK,et al.An ergonomic evaluation of cleco pliers. Proc Hum Factors Ergon Soc Annu Meet2000; 4: 41.
31.
GroenesteijnLEikhoutSMVinkP. One set of pliers for more tasks in installation work: the effects on (dis)comfort and productivity. Appl Ergon2004; 35: 485–492.
32.
YouHKumarAYoungR, et al.An ergonomic evaluation of manual Cleco plier designs: effects of rubber grip, spring recoil, and worksurface angle. Appl Ergon2005; 36: 575–583.
33.
SpielholzPBaoSHowardN. A practical method for ergonomic and usability evaluation of hand tools: a comparison of three random orbital sander configurations. Appl Occup Environ Hyg2001; 16: 1043–1048.
34.
LiKW. Ergonomic design and evaluation of wire-tying hand tools. Int J Ind Ergon2002; 30: 149–161.
35.
ClaudonL. Influence on grip of knife handle surface characteristics and wearing protective gloves. Appl Ergon2006; 37: 729–735.
36.
MirkaGAJinSHoyleJ, et al.An evaluation of arborist handsaws. Appl Ergon2009; 18: 205–213.
37.
VeisiHChoobinehAGhaemH,et al.The effect of hand tools’ handle shape on upper extremity comfort and postural discomfort among hand-woven shoemaking workers. 2019. doi: 10.1016/j.ergon.2019.102833.
38.
OsgoodCESUdGJTannenbaumPH,et al.El diferencial semántico como instrumento de medida. In: WainermanCH (eds) Escalas de Medición En Ciencias Sociales. Buenos Aires: Ediciones Nueva Visión, 1976, pp.331–369.
KongYKKimDMLeeKS,et al.Comparison of comfort, discomfort, and continuum ratings of force levels and hand regions during gripping exertions. Appl Ergon2012; 43: 238–289.
41.
Kuijt-EversLFMMorelKPNEikelenbergNLW,et al.Application of the QFD as a design approach to ensure comfort in using hand tools: can the design team complete the House of Quality appropriately?Appl Ergon2009; 40: 519–526.
42.
Kuijt-EversLFMGroenesteijnLDe LoozeMP,et al.Identifying factors of comfort in using hand tools. Appl Ergon2004; 35: 453–458.
43.
WangZStoneRTKimJYM. Hand tool evaluation: a review of existing hand tool evaluation and selection studies. Int J Human Factors Ergono2023; 10: 15–40.
44.
VinkPAnjaniSUdomboonyanupapS, et al.Differences and similarities in comfort and discomfort experience in nine countries in Asia, the Americas and Europe. Ergonomics2021; 64: 553–570.
45.
SantosACSilvaGTerraR, et al.Loss Function Curve to Quantify Customer (Dis) Satisfaction for Rear Chair Height (H30-2). SAE Technical Paper2024.
46.
TamilselviCManimekalaiRYogameenakshiP, et al.Assessment of drudgery reduction of different weeders in paddy for farm women. Int J Curr Microbiol Appl Sci2020; 9: 598–602.
47.
MishraASinghSRKSinghA, et al.Inventory on women friendly tools. Jabalpur, India: ICAR-ATARI, 2016.
48.
KumarRBangaHKKumarR, et al.Ergonomic evaluation of workstation design using taguchi experimental approach: a case of an automotive industry. Int J Interact Des Manuf2021; 15: 481–498.
49.
AptelMClaudonLMarsotJ. Integration of ergonomics into hand tool design: principle and presentation of an example. Int J Occup Saf Ergon2002; 8: 107–115.
50.
MarsotJClaudonL. Design and ergonomics: methods for integrating ergonomics at hand tool design stage. Int J Occup Saf Ergon2004; 10: 13–23.
51.
DempseyPGMcGorryRWLeamonTB,et al.Bending the tool and the effect on human performance: further investigation of a simulated wire-twisting task. AIHA J2010; 63: 586–593.
52.
QiuBZhangYShenH, et al.Ergonomic researches in agricultural machinery—a systematic review using the PRISMA method. Int J Ind Ergon2023; 95: 103446.
53.
JyotsanaKRSinghKMehtaM. Ergonomic evaluation of rural women while performing wheat harvesting activity. J Hum Ecol2005; 18: 309–311.
54.
Shilpi VermaSVShobhana GuptaSGPachauriCP. An ergonomic study on evaluation of single wheel hoe in reducing drudgery. Agriculture Update,2013; 8: 665–669.
ImoloameEO. Evaluation of herbicide mixtures and manual weed control method in maize (Zea mays L.) production in the southern Guinea agro-ecology of Nigeria. Cogent Food Agr2017; 3: 1375378.
57.
ImoloameEOOmolaiyeJP. Impact of different periods of weed interference on Growth and Yield of Maize (Zea mays L.). Trop Agric2016; 93.
58.
MukeANabahunguLKinchéK, et al.Weeding force saving to improve profitability of cassava-legumes cropping systems in eastern democratic republic of the Congo. Crop Prot2015; 187: 106958.
59.
SarkarBKumarRMishraJS,et al.Comparative performance of different weeding tools in maize. unpublished.
60.
FathallahFAMillerBJMilesJA. Low back disorders in agriculture and the role of stooped work: scope, potential interventions, and research needs. J Agric Saf Health2008; 14: 221–245.
61.
Harris-AdamsonCChenBJanowitzI,et al.Ergonomic evaluation of an alternative tool for cake decorating. Int J Ind Ergon2017; 57: 63–67.
62.
KodleNRBhosleSPPansareVB. Ergonomic risk assessment of tasks performed by workers in granite and marble units using ergonomics tool’s REBA. Mater Today Proc2023; 72: 1903–1916.
63.
Ortiz HernándezG. El significado de los colores. México: Ciudad de México, 1992.
64.
MontmollinM. Introducción a la ergonomía. México: Ciudad de México, 1998.
65.
ErolTDielsCShippenJ,et al.The visual categorization of production automotive seats on descriptors of comfort. WORK2021; 68: 69–85.
66.
VanderwalLRautiainenRKuyeR, et al.Evaluation of long- and short-handled hand hoes for land preparation, developed in a participatory manner among women vegetable farmers in the Gambia. Appl Ergon2011; 42: 749–756.
67.
CDIR. California Code of Regulations, Title 8, Section 3456: Hand-held Tools. 2005.
68.
FrohriepS. A holistic approach to operator system comfort. Congress Int Ergon Assoc2018: 258–267.
69.
DewanganKNOwaryCDattaRK. Anthropometric data of female farm workers from north eastern India and design of hand tools of the hilly region. Int J Ind Ergon2008; 38: 90–100.
70.
DulJDouwesMSmittP. Ergonomic guidelines for the prevention of discomfort of static postures based on endurance data. Ergonomics1994; 37: 807–815.
71.
ChatizwaI. Mechanical weed control: the case of hand weeders. In: Brighton Crop Protection Conference Weeds. Brighton, UK, 17–20 November 1997, pp.203–208. Farnham, UK.
72.
RamahiAAFathallahFA. Ergonomic evaluation of manual weeding practice and development of an ergonomic solution. Proc Hum Factors Ergon Soc Annu Meet2006; 50: 1421–1425.
73.
BerndLLóbachBJohnL, et al.Diseño Industrial bases para la configuración de los productos industriales. Barcelona: Editorial Gustabo Gigi, 1981.
